What does "peace " mean? Something very different from the condition of the world between 1919 and 1939, That was simply a condition of steadily brewing war. The only desirable peace is a state of the whole world in which war is impossible because no one needs it, or is open to being persuaded that he or his nation needs it. Even to-day, of course, nearly all men desire peace; all but a few violent perverts and their dupes, and a few bitterly unsatisfied national groups, and a few individuals who actually profit by making arms. But though nearly all men consciously desire peace, many have needs of one sort or another which lay them open to war-propaganda. A real peace must be based on a positive will for a peaceful and harmonious world-society; and such a will can exist only among human beings who have not been perverted from sanity by mentally damaging conditions, such as faulty upbringing and economic insecurity.

Warfare has no single cause like scarlet-fever or arsenic poisoning. It is a symptom due to general unhealthiness in the patient, and the cause of this general unhealthiness is general bad conditions of life. In the past a number of different e}exclusive panaceas have been advocated, by pacifists, Marxists, federalists, champions of an international. police force, psychologists, educationalists. Each of these groups of enthusiasts had grasped some important: facto r in the problem, but each tended to be blind to the truth emphasized by the others. By now there is a widespread recognition that the problem and its solution are both very complex, and that there is no panacea.

I propose to attempt a synthesis of all the partial remedies, to, discover in each case its valuable contribution to the problem of founding a real peace. I shall also note how these essential truths are related together.

Unfortunately, I cannot claim to be an expert in any of the fields that I shall invade. I offer merely a plain man’s view. as balanced as he can make it.

In building the great and permanent Temple of Peace, we must have both a short-term and a long-term policy. The short-term policy must be adequate to provide whatever security is possible in a transitional world. The long-term policy must be such as to create a world-society so unified in sentiment and in structure that war will be, if not strictly inconceivable, at least as: improbable as in our day war would be between, say, Wessex and Mercia. We have to design our Temple of Peace in such a way that we shall have as soon as possible some kind of serviceable altar and shelter, but also we have to lay the foundations of a great and permanent structure.

I am not offering anything like a complete plan for the great Temple of Peace. I am merely trying to mark out the position of seven main supporting pillars, each one of which must be independently founded but also properly related to the others. I do not claim that this design is the only possible design for the Temple, but I do believe that any workable design would have to centre upon some such main supports.

Here, then, is my list of the Seven Pillars of Peace:

Both for the short-term policy and the long-term policy all these seven factors have to be taken into account so far as possible, but some are such that they cannot quickly take effect; others, therefore, will have to play the more important part in the short-term policy. Thus Religious Feeling, though perhaps in a sense the most important of all in the long run, is not something which can be conjured into existence between the armistice and the formal peace. Political and Economic Organization, therefore, may have to be the main supports of our preliminary structure. Armed Authority also, I fear, will have to play a very important part at first. In the completed Temple of Peace it will be only a minor factor, but I cannot myself believe that we shall be able to do without it altogether till many centuries have passed, if ever.

Clearly, very much will depend on the laying of secure .foundations when hostilities cease, and indeed while hostilities still continue. If the United Nations are completely victorious, they obviously must bear overwhelming responsibility for reorganizing the world. But their moral authority for this great task will depend on their conduct during the war. Only if they can now prove themselves worthy of the confidence of all the peoples will they gain, or deserve the co-operation of those peoples. Only by giving concrete and unmistakable evidence of their good will to all mankind will they persuade the Greeks, the Juguslavs, the Dutch, the Indians, the Germans, the Japanese and all the rest to trust them. Thus, the distribution of food and medical aid to occupied Europe, even if it were to put us at some slight military disadvantage, might playa very important part in creating confidence in our sincerity. But that confidence will not go very deep so long as India remains an imperial scandal. And in occupied Europe, so long as the advance of our armies fails to be followed by the setting up of genuinely democratic Governments, how can we expect the oppressed peoples to give us full confidence when we come to the arranging of peace terms? But, indeed, peace terms should be in some respects stated now. It is certain that there can be no real peace unless the masses of Germany can be persuaded to co-operate willingly in the new order. And this they will not do unless we make it clear that we shall not try to reduce them to servitude. Meanwhile, in order to divide them from their pernicious rulers we should make it crystal clear that if we conquer them we shall do our utmost to help them to reorganize their Statue in such a way as to key it satisfactorily into the common life of Europe and of the World.

Whether the United Nations will have sufficient integrity or sufficient unity to, use their power for carrying out the short-term peace policy may well be doubted. All that is clear is that if they have not, then we are doomed to another period of latent war and another gigantic conflict, perhaps with Russia and the United States of America as the two main opponents. Some feel that nothing but a miracle can save mankind from further and more devastating disaster. And indeed, looking at the whole matter from the familiar and so-called "realistic" point of view, in fact from the point of view which dominated the nineteenth and early twentieth century, it does seem that nothing short of a miraculous change in human nature can save us. But I believe that this "realism" is not in fact realism at all. It assumes that human mentality does not change, and that sentiments which dominate men in one period must dominate them for ever. The whole of human history gives the lie to this view. If it is true, how is it that nationalism ever appeared, and that it gained the prodigious power that it now has?

No. The establishment of peace, real peace, does indeed depend upon a miracle, on a change which, from the point of view of the mental climate which is passing, must necessarily appear to be miraculous; but the sheer pressure of circumstances is steadily forcing men's minds to change so profoundly that what seemed to be an impossible miracle may come to appear as mere common sense.

Unless most men feel peace to be sacred, the will for peace will be frail. The utilitarian motive for peace, though very necessary, is not enough. Sooner or later some powerful group within the whole is bound to persuade itself that it could gain advantage by violence; or some less powerful group will believe that it is in danger of attack, and must arm. Only if there is a very widespread and sincere feeling that to break the peace is morally wrong, is wicked, will the powerful refrain from violence and the less powerful have assurance of real security.

But "peace," in the sense of a mere absence of hostilities is a negative thing. What. precisely is the positive religious sentiment which affirms the sanctity of peace, The source of the sanctity of peace is the religious passion for right human relations, the sense that we are incipiently "members one of another," and ought to be so to a much fuller extent.

Not only peace but all the great causes which are at stake to-day derive from the growing conviction that there is a right goal or direction for all human activity. This goal is roughly describable as "making the most of" every human individual; or, as the development in every individual, and in the race as a whole through succeeding generations, of the capacity for conscious personality. More accurately, the, aim is the development of "personality-in-community." For to be a person is essentially to be a person-in-community -with-other-persons. Personality and community, by their very nature, involve one another.

To develop in personality is to become more clearly aware of the world, including oneself and other selves; to feel more precisely and appropriately in response to these; to act more integratively and creatively in service of the supreme common cause of making the most of mankind. Each of these phrases calls for much amplification, but this is not the place to attempt it.

When we are in our most awakened state, and are not bemused by clever but incomplete theories, we see unmistakably that we all halve a fundamental duty toward ourselves and toward one another in this respect. Whatever the final philosophical meaning of "ought," we ought to live in as fully personal and communal a way as possible, and we ought to ensure that every individual shall have full opportunity to develop his capacity for personality-in-community.

When we are in our most awakened state, and are not perverted by some irrelevant obsession or craving,. or intellectual jugglery, we see unmistakably that personality-in-community is right. And "right" must mean at least this: we feel profoundly that this is what we are for. In some sense which cannot yet be intellectually clarified, we are instrumental to the development of the spirit through personality-in-community. We see also, when we are "awake," that any mind, sufficiently developed and unperverted, cannot but feel as we do about personality-in-community; any mind, in any period, or any world, or any universe. How do we know that this is so? We know it because in our own experience we find that this relation is the way of spiritual increase; because, so to speak, it multiplies each by the other, or all by all, and raises each to a higher power of awareness than is possible without it.

This I believe to be the minimum religious conviction which is necessary for the founding of a real peace. Many would say that it does not go far enough, that the will for personality-in-community is in some sense fundamental to the universe, that there is a personal God whose will is love, and that this is the only sure sanction for morality. Well, there may be such a God; but most people to-day lack belief in him. And metaphysical theories about the universe are a very unsure foundation for morality. Moreover, love is not right because God wills it; rather God, if he exists, is good only because he wills love, which is right intrinsically.

Many, on the other hand, would say that even my qualified recognition of religion goes too far, that my fundamental religious intuition can be wholly explained in purely humanistic terms as a result of the social conditioning of primitive impulses, and that peace must be founded simply on purely utilitarian motives. I don't believe them, but I must not argue with them here. I will say only this. Whatever the finally true intellectual account of the religious passion for right human relations, that passion is the fundamental source of an active will for peace. It is necessary as a religious passion. It must impose a "way of life," a sacred duty, a duty (dare I say it?) of spiritual development of oneself and spiritual service of others.

Consider what "community" means. For peace, it is the most important factor in "the Way." Contrast community with mere animal sociality, mere gregariousness, in which there is only an impulse to conform to herd-behaviour and to enforce conformity on others. Even for human beings this is the commonest kind of sociality, but we are capable also of another kind, which is distinctively human. This is derived from our self-awareness and other-awareness, from out awareness of others as conscious beings who are at once fundamentally like us, yet also different from us in character. temperament and needs. From this mutual awareness springs mutual respect, valuing; and also mutual enrichment of our own personality through contact with different personalities; and the glad acceptance of mutual service and responsibility.

The clearest example of community is personal love. Only those who have experienced personal love in one of its many forms can know what community is in any form. In love the lovers value one another, and find in one another spiritual increase. But also they value the little social whole which they together compose. They are conscious not only of "me" and "you," but also of "us." They value themselves and one another as aspects of a single treasure of community which they hold in common. If their love is really healthy, it is no mere mutual admiration society. They love and adore love itself, and feel themselves to be in some sense instrumental to the expression of this "divine" thing. Whatever the philosophical truth of the matter, this is how they feel, if they love with full consciousness, Further, their love reaches beyond itself. It is essentially loving comradeship in a common cause which goes beyond their little community. And for health every kind of community should have this element of comradeship in a common cause.

We cannot in the full sense love mankind, because we cannot know mankind. But having experienced personal love, which is the fullest kind of community, and having conceived thereby a religious passion for love, or rather for every kind of true community, for the right relationship between human beings, we can will that all mankind shall be united in the fullest community that is possible for it.

From this religious passion for personality-in-community there follows the will for a special way of life. It is the way of respect for personality and for community. It is the way of friendliness, kindness, brotherhood, comradeship. Dominance and violence are felt to infringe a sacred taboo, are an outrage to the spirit. Friendliness and non-violence are felt to be absolutely obligatory, right; and are found in practice to be also potent ways of influencing people.

Are we, then, to suppose that violence must never be used? To take this view is to build the Temple of Peace with one pillar only, and that one top-heavy. It is an over-simplification. It neglects the actual circumstances of a very imperfect species and a very unwholesome social order. Non-violence can work only when the opponent is sufficiently awake, sufficiently developed spiritually to be accessible; and not too perverted, It is a piece of sheer wishful thinking to suppose that all men, or even the majority, are sufficiently developed and unperverted. True, all men are potentially accessible to friendliness; but only if they have not been too badly damaged by faulty upbringing or by infuriating social conditions. Then again, non-violence can only work when it can manifest itself. It is impotent, for instance, against airmen in bombing planes.

After the last war there was, I believe, a moment for absolute pacifism and unilateral disarmament, had we and the French been capable of it. Of course it would have had to be combined with a reasonable and generous policy toward our former enemies, otherwise it would have been futile. But the moment was lost. Folly and harshness recreated hate. Hence Nazism. And then the weakness and cynicism of our rulers, combined with a purely abstract and lop-sided pacifism amongst the people, let Nazism grow. Nazism has shown us the limitations of non-violence. Some hooligans may be open to conversion by non-violence; but conversion may well be impossible in the case of hooligans organized on a huge scale by perverts in a society that has been violently embittered (as Germany was) by false protestations of good will land pacific intentions on the part of well-armed conquerors.

Pacifists tell us that no good can ever come out of violence. It is certainly true that great evil will always come out of it, since suffering will come, and incalculable harm to the frail tradition of community. But it is mere wishful thinking to say that no good can come. It certainly comes when we rescue someone by shooting a tiger or a maniac. And the same may be true of combining to rescue a group that is being persecuted by another group.

There is of course an arguable pacifism of despair. The spiritual harm caused by war, it may be said, is so immense that spiritual ruin is inevitable. Perhaps. We do not know that this is so. But when we hear a desperate appeal for help, to stand aside is surely a greater violation of the sacred thing, community, than to use violence.

What is the upshot? Without the religious passion for the right relation between 'human beings, no real peace can exist. But other things are necessary as well as this passion. We have to organise the world in such a way that the passion for world-community can flourish; and so that violence may no longer be a possible, though desperate, remedy for injustice.

The most obviously necessary Pillar of Peace is the political unification of the world. In England peace came by merging the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms into an over-State; and in Britain by merging England, Scotland and Wales. By analogy, then, if we would have a secure world-peace, it would seem that we must found the all-inclusive world-State, the grand Federation of the World, with its supreme Parliament of Man. Then war will be impossible.

True, of course; but there are obvious and formidable difficulties. Great Powers will not surrender sovereignty. After the war each of the United Nations will look suspiciously on its fellow victors. The peoples have all good reason to distrust one another. How are we to unite Germany and Poland, how Japan and China, how Russia and America ? It is all too likely that, after this war as after the last, there will be "Have" Powers and "Have-Not Powers, empires and would-be empires; and that there will be incompatible and bitterly hostile ideologies.

Yet, obviously, something must be done. Unlimited national sovereignty makes war inevitable. Each sovereign State, whatever its declarations and promises, is bound in the last resort to act for itself alone. Hence, competition for markets and for spheres of influence, and for exploitable territories and exploitable backward populations. Hence, competition in armaments. Hence, universal distrust, jealousy, hate. And hence, inevitably, war.

Both before and after the First World War there was a steady though slow tendency towards piece-meal limitation of national sovereignty by particular, ad hoc, agreements between sovereign States on such matters as health regulations, postal services, currency, trade and labour conditions, copy-right, extradition of criminals, radio, international law and organs of justice, and even limitation of armaments. All this, clearly, was to the good; but, no less clearly, it did, not go to the root of the matter. No State dared surrender its ultimate power to act in its own interest, and to defend itself by armed force. In disputes of really vital interest between Great Powers the ultimate decision must always be made by war. Only it there had been a universal and overwhelmingly powerful sentiment against war, in fact a religious passion for peace, would any Great Power have been shamed into refraining from military action when it considered itself in serious danger. No such religious passion existed. In the absence of such a passion, nothing but an overwhelmingly armed supra- national authority could have prevented war.

What are the prospects of an international authority more successful than was the League of Nations? It looks improbable that a fully fledged World-Federation should spring into life. There are still too many violently conflicting nationalisms. And there is the formidable ideological conflict between capitalism and communism, headed by America and Russia. Will it be possible to create local federations of states in the various danger spots of the world, and particularly in Europe and the Far East? The members of each group would have to surrender their right to maintain national armed forces, and submit to the authority of a Federal Government. Clearly, it would be very difficult to create sufficient mutual trust for such an act of faith unless each group was arranged in such a way that no member State was preponderant. The integrity of the federation might have to be guaranteed by external great Powers. Clearly, such a system of local federal groups might lead to wars between the sovereign federations. Already we have such federations, namely the U.S.S.R., the U.S.A., and (in an informal manner) the British Empire; and clearly their existence is no guarantee of peace beyond their own frontiers. Indeed, between such super-States wars are all too possible. The principle of local federations needs to be complemented by some kind of world-wide organization, a new and more effective League of Nations. But can any society of sovereign States ever be effective? Perhaps it may be possible to combine close-knit local federations with loose universal organization and an ad hoc World Armaments Commission. This Commission would need to have the right of search for illegal manufacture of arms in any country. It would, however, be impotent if the Great Powers retained their armaments at a level which makes aggression possible. Nevertheless, it is not inconceivable that in a favourable atmosphere, that is, with the backing of a real will for peace, such a plan might work.

It is surely clear, then, that world political organization by itself cannot secure peace. It must be backed by a passionate will for peace, and a considerable readiness to take risks, and even make grave sacrifices, for peace. Also, political organization is bound to be ineffective so long as the economic structure of the world remains such that all the States are in desperate competition with each other, hungry for exploitable regions, and terrified of being exploited. Another Commission is needed besides the Armaments Commission, an economic one.

This brings me to the third great Pillar of Peace.

Ultimately, let us hope, the World Police will be armed with nothing more than truncheons, or perhaps merely with authoritative uniforms. But we live in a transitional age in which, whether we like it or not, armed force is bound to play a great part. The attempt simply to abolish it is for the present doomed to failure. The more hopeful course is, while doing our best to reduce it as far as possible, to organise it in such a way that it may become an instrument of peace, not of war. For a long while yet, there will be gravely conflicting interests in the world, and groups which will not hesitate to gain their ends by force if they believe they can do so with impunity. There will also be a good deal of positive evil will, organised for evil purposes. This is mainly the lasting fruit of past evil or foolish actions on the part of those wielding power. Within a generation or two, gratuitous evil will could be greatly reduced by a combination of wise social planning, education for world-citizenship and the spread of religious feeling for right human relations; but it will always remain a factor that must not be ignored.

Unless the issue of the war turns out to be n fact very different from what now seems likely, the United Nations, or rather the Governments of the three preponderant powers, will find themselves in effective control of Europe and of Japan, and indeed of the whole world. If they were hastily to remove their control, there would be chaos in many regions, Will they be faithful to their promises? Will they honestly rehabilitate the suffering populations? Will they use their armed forces as the nucleus of a real world-force, which must include contingents from every nation, including their former enemies? Or will they, as the Allies did after the last war, use their power to exploit the conquered? Or again, will they fallout among themselves? There is at least a chance that things will go better this time. Bitter experience, an increasing world-consciousness among the peoples, the unmistakable breakdown and exposure of capitalism, and the fact that one of the United Nations has broken for ever with that bad old system, offer at least some ground for hope.

Given real sincerity of purpose and real economic planning, there is hope that some kind of World Armaments Commission may be able to tide over the difficult transitional period and establish itself as a permanent instrument of peace. It would supervise the progressive reduction of national armaments. It would need to maintain resident inspectors in every country to see that its orders were enforced. It would report at once any secret infringement of them, and it would automatically and at once put the World Police in action, not simply against the law-breaking national State as such, but against the particular individual malefactors, whether politicians, soldiers, industrialists, who were actually responsible.

The Commission would certainly need to have at its command a real World Police Force, including an air force; though this, we may hope, would never need to be employed. The Police Force would have to be thoroughly cosmopolitan in composition. The co-operation of the British and American and other forces in the present war is a first and imperfect, but a hopeful, example of what may be done. The High Command would have to be representative of all peoples. And it would be important to arrange that there should be no homogeneous national units beyond an agreed size, say a battalion, Finally, the whole force would need to be thoroughly trained not only in military and police proficiency, but also in cosmopolitan feeling. That this is possible is proved by the genuinely cosmopolitan feeling of the League of Nations Secretariat.

Armed authority, then, is necessary; but, like all the other Pillars of Peace, it is not by itself sufficient. It presupposes a widespread and earnest will for peace, and it involves political and economic organization. It demands also the three Pillars which I have still to consider. Let us turn first to the problem of education, without which the will for peace cannot be intelligent, and the use of armed forces cannot but be erratic.

A vague disposition for friendliness is useless as a foundation for peace unless it is backed by knowledge of world-conditions. Men must not only desire world-community; they must define it intelligently, and be in a position to work for it intelligently.

The fundamental aim of education is to develop individuals as persons, and as persons, for community. It must make the most of them as human beings, as knowing, feeling and striving centres of consciousness. It should be planned so as to make them as fully aware as possible of their world, including themselves and other selves. It should also call out their special capacities, and enable them to exercise those capacities in service of community.

Such education for personality-in-community, is urgently needed for peace, and to produce satisfactory world-citizens. We must condition the young to true community from the nursery onwards; we must also train them for critical intelligence and independence of judgement; and for detachment from self-seeking, and from exclusive group-loyalties, such as nationalism. Finally we must impart to every citizen of the necessary minimum of information about the world-society and the common struggle of mankind from darkness toward the light. By every possible means we must evoke interest in and earnest devotion to the great human adventure. Some have argued that such interest is beyond the range of ordinary people, who can rise to passionate national loyalty, but no further. This view neglects the fact that nationalism itself was formerly beyond the range of ordinary people, and that it later became a most powerful motive. Changing conditions are now steadily working toward the supercession of nationalism by loyalty to the world-society as a whole. Education can immensely foster this process.

What methods are demanded? We must abolish all exclusively tribalistic conditioning. History text books, and indeed many other text books, will have to be re-written so as to give an objective account of the rise of the present world situation. All subjects must be related to the social ideal of constructing a world of happy and creatively active human beings bound together in the common venture of human development. Education must enable young people to find the supreme self-expression not in self-display, nor financial triumph, nor even in purely national service, but in service in the crusade to fulfil the potentiality of the human spirit. These aims will be facilitated by the use of all possible means to bring every national community into contact with others. There must be cultural intercourse, encouragement of foreign travel, exchange of teachers and students. The press and above all the radio and the cinema must be used to the full as instruments of mutual awareness and sympathetic understanding.

But though deliberate education for world-citizenship is a potential influence for peace, it cannot work in opposition to a hostile cultural environment and tradition. It can only facilitate tendencies which are already at work as a result of changing conditions. We might provide an ideal education for world-citizenship, and yet, if the whole structure, and temper of the national societies were opposed to world-unity, our ideal education would be ineffective. As Margaret Mead, and others have shown', the young inevitably mould themselves to the general cultural and social background of their lives.

The Nazi educationists were wise enough to do more than merely inculcate certain ideas in certain school periods. They reorientated the child's whole life and social background. Similarly, then, education for world-citizenship must be a total education in which the whole circumstance of the young, and of the adult also, is informed, by the spirit of the new world.

In another way also the success of education depends on something other than education, in the ordinary sense. The civilized and human mentality cannot develop properly if it is constantly being influenced by irrelevant and unconscious impulses. In fact, education for peace presupposes the sixth of the Seven Pillars.

Very few human beings consciously want war. Most loathe it. But probably all have unrecognised needs to smash and dominate. Impulses of dominance and irrational hate often exercise a secret control over our actions.

Some psychologists believe that vindictive impulses are part of man's innate constitution. I am not convinced of this, but even if it is true, there can be no doubt that vindictiveness is immensely increased by conditions unfavourable to proper human growth. It can therefore be greatly reduced by providing favourable conditions. And it can be sublimated into harmless or positively admirable activities.

Psychologists assure us that the main cause of the exaggeration of unconscious impulses of vindictiveness and dominance is unpropitious treatment in early years. We are one and all to a greater or lesser extent psychically damaged goods. Unfortunate relations with parents cause conflict in us between love and hate, and breed in us impulses to smash for smashing's sake. Similarly, a sense of inferiority may be repressed, and compensated for by aggressiveness and a secret will to torture.

In adult life the same effect may be produced by economic failure, by the prospect of being a nobody for ever, or by victimization at the hands of foremen or sergeants or other superiors, or by simply being a square peg in a round hole.

The result of all this unconscious strain upon us is that, though consciously we all loathe war, in every one of us there is a secret need for something of that very sort. Consequently, in critical moments, just when public calm is most needed, men may be carried away by sudden violent passions of nationalistic hate and dominance. Further, when war breaks out, they often feel a secret sense of release and exultation, even while at the same time they loathe and condemn it.

The only way to reduce the unconscious impulses that favour war is to abolish the conditions that foster them. This is an immense task. Young people must be educated for parenthood. Nursery schools must be provided. for early training in community. All persons who are to have authority should be chosen partly with a view to their psychological fitness to control people without doing mental hurt to them. Economic security must be provided for all citizens of the world-society. Vocational psychology must be more fully applied to the task of allocating workers to jobs suited to them. All jobs should be planned with a view not merely to the greatest possible output but also, to the requirements of the physical and mental health of the workers.

Mental sanitation is a purely negative operation; it consists merely of preventing the occurrence of unconscious impulses which render human beings incapable of true community, and lay them open to the appeal of warfare. The securing of peace demands also a more positive kind of psychological adjustment, namely devices by which a fundamentally peaceful society may afford psychological substitutes for war. This brings me to the last of the Seven Pillars of Peace.

Very many human beings, particularly in youth, need adventure and opportunities for heroic devotion. Even those who have not been warped by bad conditioning, even those who are not misled by unwitting and irrational vindictiveness, need sometimes to live dangerously for some high cause. They need, in fact, certain wholly admirable satisfactions which hitherto war alone has provided.

This need for heroic action is specially urgent in a stable and comfortable society, and even more so when the prevailing mental climate stresses individualism and purely hedonistic satisfactions. Liberal commercial democracy offered no sufficient outlet to the heroic impulses.. This was one cause of its failure to hold the young. The vogue of dangerous sports was a symptom of this failure. Mountaineering, rock-climbing, exploration, motor-racing, boxing, big-game hunting, gave some satisfaction, but were poor substitutes for war. The danger which they provided was not adequate; or if very serious risks were taken, the behaviour was felt to be merely foolhardy, not heroic. There was no adequate occasion for loyalty and self-sacrifice. There was no imperious cause, conceived as more important than the individual’s own life. Revolutionary Communism provided such a cause, particularly in the call to defend the revolution in Russia and in Spain. In a different manner, Fascism, including Nazism, succeeded in catching the young, by the specious glamour of an appeal to the longing fur romance and dangerous struggle, It demanded a complete self-abnegation and devotion, and it methodically conditioned the young to hardihood and brutality, This movement was a natural reaction from a "soft" liberal commercialism. Its error lay in its demanding loyalty not to the true human goal of personality-in-community but to ideals which were false and base.

If we are to establish a fundamentally peaceful world-society we must provide some outlet for the heroic impulses, which, unlike vindictiveness are in themselves. wholly admirable. This outlet may perhaps have to take the form of activities which are physically as severe and hardening as commando training, and dangerous to the extent of sacrificing a certain number of lives. It must offer scope for comradeship and chivalry, and it must be manifestly an opportunity for whole-hearted service in a high cause.

I do not pretend to know how the peaceful world will satisfy this need. No doubt there will still be some openings for exploration and pioneering settlement in inhospitable regions. There may be some form of youth pioneer corps in which the young ma y give, say, a year of their life to arduous and dangerous work of social urgency. There may also be scope in experiments in rocket flying in the stratosphere, and some day perhaps interplanetary voyaging.

But probably the most important method of satisfying the need for arduous devotion will be to secure that the individual’s ordinary way of life shall be sufficiently varied, interesting, exciting and socially valuable to enable him to do without any special and spectacular and outlet for his heroic impulses.